“The fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism,” Lenin

We already know: the world is in constant flux, the United States is an
empire in decline (and of course, for this reason it is more dangerous)
and it is faced with more and more influence on the international scene
from other countries that tend to undermine those who now hold a
dominant position. This is definitely a good thing, from a certain
point of view: the more economic and political clashes between these
powers, which Lenin called the ”most profound contradictions of imperialism”,1
the more space for those the system tries to overcome making tactical
use of any opportunity that the national and international political
scenarios in flux can offer.

Communists must be pragmatic and
flexible in applying tactics from time to time, just as
Marxist-Leninist theory is not a theological dogma but a tool that
gives us the ability to understand and analyze the world around us.
However, in the bleak scenario that the small circle of communists
nowadays provides, it is not uncommon to argue with those who, by
carrying this to extreme pragmatism, eventually abandon not only the
revolutionary theory to arrive at opportunism, but distort the facts.
And this is perhaps even more dangerous.

One of the most disturbing (and bizarre, let me say) distortions
consists in comparing what the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was
with Russia today. The “rehabilitation” of a glorious past, which also
includes the revival of the symbols and rituals of real socialism and
its open antagonism with the United States has incredibly confused many
comrades. It is not uncommon to read comments such as: “Long live
Comrade Putin!” or “Putin is rebuilding the USSR!”, “I knew it (the
Soviet Union, ed.) would come back.”

Undeniably Russia has concluded the first post-Soviet period of the
massive sell-off of the economic, political and cultural wealth of the
people to the large speculators, profiteers and gangsters intertwined
with the USA and the West in general. These are no longer alcoholic
traitors leading the country but a “statesman”, competent and prepared
(note his past training in the KGB). These combined factors have helped
to create this image, this distortion of reality. Without wishing to
dwell on the history of the USSR, we must ask ourselves first, what
makes a state a socialist country. It is a fact that the Communist
Party must lead the country (as the political vanguard of the
proletariat), but this is not essential to determine the nature of the
system: instead we focus on the economic structure, which can allow us
to dispel all doubt.

Either the means of production are in the hands of the workers, and
therefore they have been socialized, or one cannot and should not speak
of socialism. One should also pay attention to the difference between
the concept of socialization of the means of production and that of
nationalization: the latter indeed includes the expropriation of the
means of production in order to hand it over to a state entity, but
without this affecting the ownership of the property by the
bourgeoisie, if we are talking about a capitalist country. For example,
in the 1960s many strategic enterprises in Italy were state-owned
(energy, steel, etc.), but did this mean that Italy was a socialist
country? Who owned the wealth of the country? Was it the workers or the
exclusive elite group of entrepreneurs who controlled, and still
control, the reins of the economy and national politics?

So the first factor to emphasize, for a communist, is the change of the
economic structure in Eastern Europe, primarily in Russia. This was a
reversion to capitalist relations of production, as a result of the
counter­revolution, where the ownership of the means of production is
in private hands and where the production and distribution of wealth is
not designed to meet the needs of the people, but to increase the
profits of the capitalists, that is, those who hold the means of
production in their hands. While the wealth of the USSR was for the
benefit of the Soviet peoples, bringing industrialization, services,
healthcare, transportation, education, security and peace, today the
wealth of the former republics goes to fatten the wallets of the satrap
in office, the speculators, banks and the large companies. They are
linked with the monopolies (think of Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, Rusal,
etc.), banks (Sberbank, VTB-Bank,Alfa Bank, Raffeinse Bank, the private
pension fund Blagosostoyanie etc.) and political institutions that
actually creates a higher stage, as we shall see in more detail.

We use numbers and statistics to support the argument: in the graph
below we can see the evolution of the export of capital for capitalist
Russia. In the early 90s and substantially until the first years of the
new Russia, decade, the
share of Russian capital exported to the rest of the world was
essentially irrelevant, both from a statistical and an economic point
of view. As mentioned earlier, these were the years in which the wealth
of the former Soviet Union was sold off and when the resurgent capital
of the country was used to re-appropriate what the Bolshevik Revolution
in 1917 and the building of socialism afterwards had conquered. There
was in essence a flight of capital (approximately $15-20 billion per
year) to Western banks by the “neo-capitalists”. From this point
onwards, however, Russian capitalism opened a new phase, one in which
banking and industrial capital began to merge and where the export of
capital begins to play a major role: this is the trend that, by
consolidating year by year (the global economic crisis only slowed this
process between 2007 and 2008) is making Russia a completely
imperialist country.

Foreign Direct Investment 1991-2012

Source: Our graph based on figures from the World Bank

Beginning in 2000, the Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) of the Russian monopolies has grown tremendously,
reaching $406.2 billion in 2012 (it was $44.2 billion in 2001).2

According to Forbes’ list, today there are 110 billionaires in Russia,
whose private property is about $320 billion, putting Russia in third
place (after the USA and China) in this ranking. The so-called Gini
coefficient of the statistical analysis of inequality is equal to 41.7
in Russia.

In analyzing point by point the characteristics of imperialism (we will
focus on the first three) expounded by Lenin, we can verify that the
concentration of production in Russia was already well developed in the
USSR; therefore, the formation of capitalist monopolies did not need
many decades, but its concentration was inherited from the socialist
economy by imposing private ownership on the means of production.

In Forbes’ list of the largest monopolies in the world there are 28
Russians, including Gazprom, Lukoil, Rosneft and Sberbank. The Russian
economy is highly concentrated; in many sectors the level is higher
than in the USA and in Germany. For example, in 2006 the proportion
that the 10 largest monopolies in Russia contributed to the GDP was
28.9%, while in the USA it was 14.1%. Most sectors of the economy,
energy, mechanical engineering, transportation and food production are
highly monopolized. We can conclude that in Russia we are dealing with
monopoly capitalism, highly concentrated, with a strong state presence.

As for the fusion between bank capital and industrial capital, this
took place over time. Sberbank is one of the largest banks in the
world, but VTB-Bank, Alfa Bank and the Bank Raffeinse also play a
crucial role in the Russian economy: the large banking monopolies are
closely linked to or belong to the industrial monopolies themselves.
This is the case with Gazprom Bank, Uralsib, Promsvjas Bank. Recently,
the Russian Communist Workers Party (RKRP-RPK) released a survey on
this issue on its website, highlighting some 20 cases,3 which we
describe below.

The industrial group Gazprom owns Gazprombank and
the private pension fund “Gazfond.” This largest Russian industrial
monopoly group also owns the insurance group “Sogas” and runs the
“Leader”, investment companies and pension funds. The well-known
oligarch Vekselberg owns Renova Holding (based
in the Bahamas), which owns the Russian group “Renova”, an
international private business company consisting of wealth management
companies and investment funds that own shares in metal mines, oil
companies, construction machinery, mining, energy, telecommunications,
nanotechnology and in the financial sector in Russia and abroad. The
Renova Group has strong investments and presence in major Russian and
international companies, including world-renowned companies such as UC
Rusal, Integrated Energy Systems, Oerlikon, Sulzer and SCHMOLZ +
BICKENBACH. Moreover, Renova, has integrated direct investment funds
and management companies operating in the energy sector (IES, Avelar
Energy), in real estate development, in investment – “Columbus Nova”,
telecommunications – “Akado Group”, the chemical industry – “Orgsyntes
Group” and precious metals – “Zoloto Kamchatki.” The Renova Group
invests in Russia, Switzerland, Italy, South Africa, Ukraine, Latvia,
Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, etc. The group also owns Metkombank,
one of the largest banks in Russia, which aims to become one of the top
50 banks attractive to investors. This large banking group owns the
“Non-Ferrous Metals Plant Kamensk-Ural”, a construction company – the
“Kortros”, and participates in other major Russian companies.

At
the same time, the oligarch Vekselberg owns a part of “UC Rusal”, the
largest aluminum producer in the world, and is co-owner of “Norilsk
Nickel”, a Russian nickel and palladium mining and smelting company,.
The oligarchs Alisher Usmanov, Vladimir Skoch and Farhad Moshiri own ”MetaUoinvest”,
one of the largest mining and metallurgical groups in Russia,
specializing in steel production, which owns the “Lebedinsky
Michajlovskij” ore enrichment plants, the “Oskol Steel Works “, “Ural
Steel” and other industries. At the same time until last year they
owned the ”Round Bank” (formerly Ferrobank), which was sold to their “friend” Leon Semenenko,
who owns Hessen Holdings Ltd and Nenburg Finance Ltd, based in Cyprus,
which each own 50% of SibConsultGroup LLC, currently the sole owner of
Round Bank. In 2012, Usmanov, one of the richest men in the world,
formed USM Holdings which includes numerous investments in
telecommunications companies such as “Garsdale”, which controls about
50% of “MegaFon”, the second largest mobile phone operator in Russia,
which in turn owns 100% of the “Scartel/Yota” company, a 4G provider,
50% of “Euroset”, the largest retailer of mobile phones in Ru­ssia. All
these companies have interests and men in the Round Bank.

The oligarch Prokhorov owns a multitude of companies; to name just some of them, “Onexim Holdings Ltd” (based
in Cyprus), which owns the group “OptoGaN”, producer of high-luminosity
LEDs. This group, with headquarters in St. Petersburg and active in
Finland and Germany, which is owned by various private investment funds
(including particularly those of Prokhorov) and state funds. Prokhorov
also owns one of the leading real estate companies in Russia, the
“Opin” and “Quadra Power Generation”, leader of the Russian electricity
sector. At the same time Prokhorov owns the “Renaissance Credit” bank and the largest investment company, “Renaissance Capital”. He also owns part of “Rusal”. Vladimir Yevtushenko, one of the richest men in Russia, owns a controlling part (64.2%) of the shares of “AFK System”, which owns “MTS-Bank” (which directly controls ”RTI Group” the
largest Russian industrial holding company that develops and
manufactures high technology and microelectronic technology products),
89% of ”Bashneft”(one of the major Russian oil companies) and 92% of the electricity distribution networks ”Bashkiria”.

In addition to media and retail chains. Oleg Deripaska owns the investment company ”Basic Element”,
with shares in the energy, industrial, aviation, agro-business,
textile, network and financial services sectors. He owns one of the
major insurance (joint-stock) companies, ’’Ingosstrakh”, the big bank ”Soyuz”, the private pension fund ”Socium”, which serves the largest production facilities of “Basic Element”, one of the largest leasing companies in Russia, Element Leasing. He also owns the GAZ Group, leader in the Russian market for commercial vehicles, which produces buses, cars, electric trains, components, etc.

The “vodka king” Roustam owns the ’’Russian Standard Bank”, one of the largest Russian banks, the insurance company ”Russian Standard Insurance” and ’’Russian Standard Vodka”, the most important company producing vodka. Agalarov owns the Crocus Group, a leading Russian real estate company, with dozens of construction and logistics companies, and the Crocus Bank. Russian Railways, one of the three largest transport companies (freight and passenger) in the world, owns the private pension fund “Blagosostoyanie”, which is wholly owned by Absolut Bank and a good part of the KIT Finance Bank. Dimitry Pumpyanskiy, through the Group ’’Ekaterinburg”, owns 98% of the ”SKB-Bank”, and 71.1% of “TMK Steel”.

Anatoly Sedykh owns 80% of “United Metallurgical Company” (one
of the largest Russian manufacturers of pipes, railway wheels and other
steel products for energy, transportation and industrial companies) and
60% of the capital of “Metallinvest Bank”. Mikail Shishhanov owns 98.6% of “Bin Bank” as well as 95% of the construction company ”INTEC”. Alekperov and Leonid Fedun have shares in Lukoil and in the IFH Capital group that owns the Bank Petrokomerts. Alekperov also has a stake in the finance company “Uralsib” and in the bank with the same name. The “Vneshtorg Bank”, which is state-owned, owns a construction company, “VTB- Development”. ”Sberbank”, state-owned, owns the auto assembly plant “Derveis” in Cherkessk, the construction companies “Krasnaya Polyana” and “Rublyovo-Arkhangelsk” and others. “Rosneft” (part of “Rosneftegaz”) owns the ’’Russian Regional Development Bank.” The MDM Bank (that began as a foundation and now is one of the largest private banks in Russia) owns the “Siberian Coal Energy Company” (the
largest coal producer in Russia and one of the leading exporters). They
are shareholders of MDM Bank, large international financial
institutions such as the International Finance Corporation, the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as one of the
largest investment companies in Russia, Troika Capital Partners.

The Guta Group is one of the largest industrial and investment corporation and owns the United Confectioners Holding Company,
leader in the confectionery market, owning most of the brands in this
sector (about 1,700). The company is vertically integrated and performs
the complete cycle of operations, from agriculture to the sale of the
processed products. The Group owns Guta Insurance and Guta Bank (one of the top 20 Russian banks). It also owns hotels and even hospitals and private clinics. The holding company ”Don Invest” includes the Commercial Bank Doninvest, and owns companies in the sectors of engineering and production of food, buses and cars. The Joint Stock Company, Federal Research & Production Center ALTAI, owns the ’’National Industrial Land Bank” and a wide range of industries.

Most of the oligarchs have seats in the Duma, direct links with the
state functionaries and with the political parties of the Russian
bourgeoisie. We can therefore conclude by affirming the existence of a
financial oligarchy in Russia, which is reflected in oligarchic
political power, not homogeneous in the sense that there are certainly
contrasts with oligarchic sectors linked to the “West” which advocate
greater liberalization and privatization (already widely foreseen),
which over the years have tried to also promote a “colour revolution”
in Russia.

We have already mentioned the export of capital, pointing out the
distinct change over the year 2000. The steady growth of the national
economy and the relative strengthening of the main national enterprises
have contributed to the rapid increase in the volume of investment,
making Russia one of the leading international investors (without a
doubt among the first ever in the “emerging” countries). With the
acquisition of companies in other countries, Russian companies have
access to new sources of resources, technology and markets, increasing
their international competitiveness. It is an expansion that reinforces
Russia’s geopolitical influence and strengthens its position in the
global economy.

According to UNCTAD data, in the first half of the decade of 2000,
foreign direct investment increased 3 or 4 times compared to the
previous decade, exceeding $10 billion a year, in 2011 increasing 3
times compared to the previous period, where participation in capital
and reinvested earnings rose to over $67.2 billion. In the last 3
years, Russian companies have been able to double the size of their
foreign assets, as well as increase the size of their revenues more
than two and a half times from their own assets.

Russian companies employ more than 150,000 workers abroad, more than
twice as many as in 2000. As a result, the accelerated global expansion
of major Russian companies has led them to assume the intrinsic
characteristics of global multinationals.

The leading position in foreign assets is occupied by the oil, gas and
steel companies: Lukoil, Gazprom, Severstal and Rusal, with a total
value (referred to as the 4) of more than $50 billion in foreign
assets. However the data, in relation to the global economy place
Russia below the other powers. In 2012, Russian companies invested more
than $139 billion in the acquisition of foreign companies (including
the acquisition by Rosneft of BP for $56 billion), ending up with about
427 major operations; many of these operations have absorbed companies
engaged in the same activity, so the Russian companies tend to focus
their expansion at their core business and not on the diversification
of their activity.

Although this trend has been changing since 2012, according to the data
of 2012, the volume of direct investment by Russian companies abroad
represented 17% of the total value of their domestic investment, and
about 20 companies control 40% of all foreign assets.

The export of capital by Russian banks is carried out either in the
form of direct investments or of acquisition of foreign services, or by
inve­sting in foreign financial instruments, including securities,
deposits in foreign banks or loans to legal entities. During the 1990s
and the early 2000s, the volume of exports of funds by Russian credit
institutions was relatively small, amounting to no more than $3.4
billion a year (but one must not forget that already at that time there
was the acquisition by Alfa Bank of the Trade Bank of Amsterdam). Since
2005, the export of capital by the banking sector has accelerated
sharply. In 2011, it reached $32 billion, an increase of more than nine
times over 2000 (data from the Bank of Russia). With the increase in
the financial capacity of the major Russian banks, which have
increasingly invested in the expansion of their own international
presence through the acquisition of existing foreign companies and the
creation of foreign subsidiaries, so that in the first months of 2013,
most of the major Russian banks owned their own subsidiary banks
abroad. In particular, over the past four years VTB-Bank has
established branches in Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Georgia,
investing more than $400 million, and also consolidating its
participation in Western European banks, and opening branches in India,
China, Vietnam and Angola. VTB is now able to provide a high level of
financial support to Russian companies in over 15 countries of the CIS
[Confederation of Independent States], Western Europe, Asia and Africa,
, aiming by 2020 to be the first and only global financial institution
in banking services of the post-Soviet era.

Furthermore, a special feature of the banking sector. which the World
Bank has expressly “recommended” as a remedy (advice that was promptly
implemented), is to present a high break down of institutes due to
barriers to entrance in very low sectors. Also in its report on Russia
the World Bank noted this difference with the other BRICS countries,
but emphasizes in each case, made the necessary interventions, that the
large Russian banks (including the state-owned ones) play a dominant
role and have no problems supporting requests for large amounts of
capital.

Therefore we can conclude that the economic structure of the USSR and
that of Russia are totally opposite and not comparable. It is not a
matter of being for or against Russia, or for or against Putin, but of
scientifically analyzing the real nature of each country, without the
mystification or idealism typical of the opportunists who seek to
separate imperialism from its economic base. Starting from this, even
the current conflict on Ukrainian territory has to be seen from the
viewpoint of a dispute between capitalist giants (such as for example
Chevron and Gazprom) and in more general terms of a dispute between the
great imperialist powers competing in the division of territories and
markets, looking for a better po­sition in the imperialist pyramid,
with the bloody intervention on Ukrainian territory by the United
States and the EU (whose warmongering escalation has even led to the
downing of an airplane with more than 300 dead), which have instigated,
financed and organized a sector of the Ukrainian oligarchy that has
established a fascist warmongering junta, to put themselves under the
influence of the Atlantic bloc and market by preventing Ukraine from
joining the Customs Union led by Russia, as was instead desired by
another sector of the bourgeoisie.4

It is this contention over markets, resources, labour power, routes and
territories that is linked to the needs of the institutions of
transnational capitalist associations, the various Free Trade
Agreements, military accords, etc. whose nature is always determined by
the relations of production and the interests of the monopolies, not
(exclusively) of geographic position. At the same time, this does not
mean that “every imperialism” has the same characteristics, but they do
have the same origin in the development of monopoly capitalism and the
need to go beyond national confines.

At this point we can judge that the real nature of this country is
well-established, it is by now completely imperialist (though not at
the top of the pyramid), where industrial capital has merged with bank
capital, and where the big monopolies play a fundamental role.
Obviously, however, this country, besides being totally opposed to a
socialist system and far from representing any “model” to adopt, is
opening up interesting scenarios at the international level: the
confrontation with the United States, up to now the most powerful and
hegemonic imperialism at the global level, the advance of other
“emerging” great powers such as China, Brazil, China, India and South
Africa (the so-called BRICS countries) is creating huge rifts in the
economic and political balance.

We can therefore say that Russia, as well as China, are the main
“enemies” of Yankee unipolarity, which was manifested in particular
after 1989 with the barbarity of the wars in former Yugoslavia, Iraq,
Afghanistan, etc. To what is this situation related? First, this is due
to the uneven development of capitalism, and the crisis which, since
2008 in its most acute phase, has affected the major imperialist
centres (USA, EU and Japan), while the countries now grouped in BRICS
have experienced a rapid development (although this varied among them)
to the point that today they have founded a new international bank, an
alternative to the IMF and World Bank, overturning Bretton Woods5 after
70 years

These events can be considered positive in the sense that they weaken
US domination and open spaces and diplomatic confrontations that can be
very useful. For example, the Russian and Chinese opposition to the UN
“peace” intervention in Syria, prevented the repetition of the Libyan
scene of a few years earlier. This allowed the Syrian government to
effectively cope with the hordes of Islamic mercenaries, supplied by
the USA and other imperialist powers (such as France), which are now
bloodying Iraq. (For further reading, see: http://www.senzatregua.it/?p=1325).

This is an indication of the change in the balance of power at the
international level, but does it indicate a change in the level of
opposition between the “imperialist camp” and the “anti-imperialist and
socialist” camp, as in the years of the existence of the socialist
camp? But why was Syria defended while Gaddafi’s Libya was shamefully
abandoned? Have the supporters, if one can define them as such, of
Putin already forgotten the heroic resistance of the Libyan people,
“abandoned” by everyone?

The division of Libya’s economic resources, oil in the first place,
among the great powers (without exception) has in fact condemned the
experience of the Libyan Jamahiriya: US, European, Russian and Asian
monopolies have flung themselves like vultures on the ruins of a
country and a people martyred by NATO with the consent of the UN. A
socialist country, based on the principle of proletarian
internationalism, would never have allowed such a massacre: indeed it
was the very existence of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc that
allowed the emancipation and liberation took place in Asia, Africa and
Central and South America, accelerating the process of decolonization,
establishing an “international law”, based on a balance of power
favourable to the people.

Another very recent example is what is taking place in the Middle East: “I
support Israel’s fight in an attempt to defend its citizens. I have
also heard of the shocking murder of the three young people. This is an
act that cannot be permitted, and I ask you to convey my condolences to
the families,” Putin said during a long meeting held in Moscow
with a delegation of rabbis, led by the Sephardi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak
Yosef and composed of the former Israeli Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau,
the Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar, and the rabbis of the Rabbinical
Centre of Europe (RCE).6

Without going into too much detail on the Palestinian issue (for further reading, see: http://www.senzatregua.it/?p=1274)
it is evident that, perceiving the various diplomatic tightropes, these
are some incredible claims (for an “anti-imperialist”): ”I support Israel’s fight” to ’’defend its citizens”.
While the masses of people around the world took to the streets (and
are still doing so) to support the right to self-determination and
freedom of the Palestinian people against the shameful and terrible
acts of war of the Israeli armed forces, the Russian president not only
declares support for Israel but adds that this is necessary to defend
its citizens. It is clear to everyone how bombing a ghetto (which they
did in the Gaza Strip), killing hundreds of women and children, is an
act of defence, isn’t it? We are still asking, why “comrade” Putin?

There are economic interests at stake (among the many actions taken one
can also count the agreement signed by the Russian president with large
financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and BlackRock?7 in support
of the national companies, the exchange of favours, the different
situations of equilibrium to be maintained or changed, and every
government legitimately plays the game. That, once again, however, is
not that of the popular masses, of the workers and of course of the
communists. An example is the struggle for the exploitation of gas and
oil fields off the coast of Israel (such as Leviathan, Dalit and
Tamar), with Russia’s Gazprom intending to set its sights on these
supplies to the Asian markets to prevent them from being exploited by
the European monopolies, which would put at risk the monopoly of
Russian supplies to Europe. These are the real interests at stake.

One myth to be dispelled is the question of “independence”. We Marxists
cannot assess the role played in recent years by BRICS in the
international division of labour, with many multinationals that have
been established in some of these countries, and the relations of
interdependence and dependence developed by these countries with the
others, on the basis of which we can state that one cannot speak of
“two worlds” but of old and new (monopoly) capitalist powers that
converge at the top of the pyramid of the international imperialist
system. To repeat what was mentioned before, the uneven development of
capitalism, the internal dynamic of capitalism is leading today to a
slowdown in these economies, which are suffering from the
contradictions and effects of the general crisis. The birth of BRICS
Bank can only be seen within the inter-imperialist dynamics of the
trade in raw materials (the fall in prices of raw materials), the
erosion of the heavy investment of the imperialist centres in these
cou­ntries and their development, which requires “disengaging” from the
danger of the financial control of the USA (IMF and WB), developing new
economic and political strategies to offset the losses on the European
markets and strengthen the interdependence between them, developing
their respective markets and carving out more space in the global
framework.

The growth of the BRICS has indeed slowed down compared to previous
years; China, which in the period 2006-2012 had maintained an average
GDP growth of 10.4% is today at 7.4%, the same applies to India, which
went from 7.8% to 4.6%. Russia went from 4.3% to 1.4%, while Brazil
went from 2.7% to 2.3%. It is in the observation of these dynamics that
some comrades often fall into error, that is, they consider today all
existing relations as a domination of the “colonial” type by a few
imperialist powers (mainly the United States and Germany), defending in
this way the supposed common interests between the “bourgeoisie” (which
is in fact monopolistic and internationalized) and the “proletariat” of
these countries, marginalizing the class struggle,
ignoring the analysis of the economic structure of each country
(monopoly capitalism) and the objective necessity of extending it to
the global market, of connecting it to the processes of globalization
of capitalism, of the expansion of international trade and the
attraction of investment capital.

The UNCTAD data8 for the years
from 2000 to 2012 show that the inflows of FDI (a very important
criterion for determining the internation­alization of production)
towards the BRICS has more than tripled, reaching $263 billion dollars
in 2012, increasing during the period of crisis and in 2012 coming to
represent 20% of world flows compared to 6% in 2000. At the same time
the BRICS countries have also become important investors, with their
Foreign Direct Investment, going from $7 billion in 2000 to $126
billion in 2012, accounting for 9% of world flows. Only ten years ago,
their share was 1.1%. China is the largest investor among the BRICS
countries (the third overall), with a total of almost $425 billion of
FDI in the whole world. Almost half (46%) of the FDI inflows in 2012
towards the BRICS went to China, followed by Brazil (25%), Russia (17%)
and India (10%), while the largest share of investments by the BRICS
went to the developed economies, particularly the European Union (34%),
driven by market research, mergers and acquisitions. Another important
share is towards Africa (where China is the largest investor) with a
share of FDI that has gone from 14% (in 2010) to 25%, with a particular
increase in manufacturing.

The expansion of Russian multinationals in Africa is fairly recent but
growing rapidly. Russia, the largest aluminium producer in the world,
is present in Angola, Guinea, Nigeria and South Africa, as well as
banks such as Vneshtorgbank, which opened in Angola, Namibia and Ivory
Coast, while Renaissance Capital holds 25% of the shares of Ecobank,
one of the largest Nigerian banks. The investment among the BRICS was
relatively limited until 2012, although it has grown rapidly rising
from 0.1 in 2003 to 2.5 in 2011 and this will be the characterization
of the next few years (with the BRICS Bank).

In 2013, the FDI by the multinationals from countries classified as
on the road of development reached $454 billion, a record. Along with
the economies classified as in transition, they represent 39% of global
FDI outflows, compared to only 12% at the beginning of the 2000 decade.
Increasingly, the multinationals of the countries on the road of
development are acquiring foreign subsidiaries of multinationals from
the developed countries.

Russia has taken a big leap forward, both in terms of its own
outflows as well as in inflows of FDI, which rose from 9th place to 3rd
(behind the USA and China) for a value of $94 billion.

The share
of FDI inflows towards the BRICS in 2013 represents 21% for a total
value of $304 billion, 10% more than in 2007. The most important fact
is that trade among the BRICS countries today already represents 17% of
world trade, amounting to $6,140 billion dollars.

Figure 4. FDI Inflows to Selected Regional and Interregional Groups
average 2005-2007 and 2013
(Billions of US dollars and per cent)

Source: UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2014

Latin America and the Caribbean have been the region where foreign
direct investment has grown most in 2010 (15-25%), in a crisis, at the
expense of the industrialized countries, which recorded a regression
(­1%) in the same period. These capitals have been transformed into new
plants, offices, productive units, etc. In this way, the region has
seen an increase in production of 13%, while at the same period the
developed economies have recorded an increase of 8%.

Investments
in South America were mainly in natural resources (43% of FDI inflows
into the region have gone into the area that produces 31% of world
production of bio-fuels, 48% of soy, 47% of copper and 31% of meat),
while in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean into the
manufacturing industry (54% in the case of Mexico, mostly to the
aerospace, food processing, automotive, medical equipment, electrical,
electronics and energy sectors, in that order), in both cases, in order
to supply the international market. This flow has strengthened the role
assigned to these countries in the international division of the
market, strengthening the interdependence of these economies, both
compared to the economies where the capital is transferred as well as
compared to the economies in which the products of these investments
are realized, are consumed. The capital is intertwined, and has been
redirected from the major centres of production to the peripheral
countries, in search of maximum profit.

Let us look at the example of Brazil (the largest recipient of foreign
investment and the country with the second largest foreign investment
in South America). Immediately evident to the eyes (but often
forgotten), the occupation of Haiti by Brazil together with the USA, as
well as the sale of arms to Colombia, which contributes to the
repression by the regime against the FARC-EP and the popular masses,
the peasants and workers. Staying on this issue, in recent years the
importance of industrial monopolies of arms has grown significantly in
Brazil, as has happened in Israel, one of the countries from which
there originated a considerable part of the resources invested, with
large capital flows and supplies of resources and arms from Israel to
Brazil, for business which during the past 12 years amounted to 1
billion reals.9 To continue our analysis of the relations with Israel,
one can look at the free trade agreements and the consequent flow
between the Zionist state and Mercosur (the same type of analysis could
be made of the relations between the latter and the EU).

To better understand the relation between international and national
capital in the monopoly stage, in reference to Brazil, we continue with
the description by Edmilson Costa:

“If
we look from the point of view of ownership, we can also see that of
these 100 largest economic groups, 58% are of mostly domestic capital,
while 42% are controlled by foreign capital. But if we look, for
example, at industry, which is the most dynamic sector of the economy,
one that creates new wealth, we see that the participation of foreign
capital is higher than that of national capital [...] the vast majority
of the national capital groups are associated, at a certain point of
their economic activity, with foreign capital, as long as it is
functional, because it opens up areas for action in the international
market and to become a major player in international financial flows.
These data also clearly show not only the degree of concentration of
the Brazilian economy, but above all the level of the relations between
national and foreign capital, that is, the organic link between the
Brazilian economy and the central economies. In almost all the dynamic
sectors of the economy, such as the automobile industry, information
technology, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, metallurgy, among others,
international capital hegemonises the production process. Similarly,
even in the traditional sectors, where national capital has always been
in the majority, such as finance, commerce and agribusiness, foreign
capital is advancing dramatically in recent years. Monopoly capital is
generally concentrated in the large cities, organizing in its logic all
the other more vulnerable sectors of capital and interconnecting the
Brazilian economy in a subordinate manner to the leading centers and to
the financial flows of international capital. The same thing happened
in the countryside [...] Consequently, this situation puts an end to
the old illusions of a possible alliance between the proletariat and
sectors of the Brazilian bourgeoisie, as some forces of the left
imagine, because this national bourgeoisie is not national and its
interests are organically linked to the interests of large
international capital.”10

Such examples should make it clear that what is developing is a struggle within
the global capitalist market for the conquest of shares and positions
of the same, on the basis of monopoly interests in search of better
conditions for the increase in value of their capital, with strong
relations of interdependence (which also achieved temporary
international agreements) and at the same time with (ever greater)
antagonism at certain levels11 with the major imperialist powers that
exploit alliances with other capitalist countries in one or another
region through economic, diplomatic and military means to increase
their influence and reduce the support for their adversary.

There
is no doubt that the characteristics of the BRICS are different from
the imperialist centres (in particular the USA and the EU), but this is
only derived from the current level of development of the former. And
this often leads to errors. In this later period comes the news of the
strengthening of relations between Germany, Russia and China, another
clear indication of the change in the international relations of power
among the global capitalist powers.

With the Tran Eurasia Express the huge Chinese market will be connected
to Europe, passing through Russia; at the same time, these three powers
are linked by strong relationships in the supply of gas going from
Russia to Germany and in 2018 to China. The manoeuvres of the German
bourgeoisie show the attempts to become a world (and not just regional)
power, unlocking itself (up to a certain point) from the Western bloc
to navigate in the global market with more and more interlinking with
China and Russia.

The flag of multipolarity cannot be a communist flag, since this is an
illusion in relation to the interests of the people, the proletariat
and peace, ’’because
there are two worlds in contention, but the continuation of capitalism
in its imperialist phase in all these cases [...] The new architecture
is the prolongation of imperialism through a new division of markets,
labor power and raw materials. The change from one imperialist center
to another, from one exploiter to another, is not an alternative. [...]
One cannot deny the communist movement or any country in which it is
possible to break the imperialist chain at its weakest link (this
is properly the role of the active participation of the class forces in
the struggle of the popular militias in the nascent People’s Republics
of Novorossija that we support), the implementation of tactics in this sense, but sooner or later antagonisms will be clear”}".12 As mentioned at the beginning, Leninism teaches us a sense of reality
to make use of every contradiction produced by the imperialist system,
but keeping well in mind the strategic vision in which every step must
end up with the strengthening of the independent class perspective, which requires the distinction between the interests of the opposing classes in each and every event that takes place.

To try to unravel the tangle, let us learn from Lenin and from his
approach to “multipolarity” and the First World War (it is not
unnecessary to note that there has never been such a multipolar world
as that which led to the First World War). In “Under a False Flag”13
(written in 1915, during the First World War), the great Russian
revolutionary responded forcefully to the arguments of A. Potresov
according to whom (on the basis of Marx) it was necessary ”to determine the success of which side opened up broader vistas for possibilities desirable from their point of view”. It is true, replied Lenin; Marx explicitly poses the question of ”the success of which side is more desirable”.
But it is misleading, he said, to reiterate that statement a half
century later, in which Marx was referring to the confrontation between
progressives in the bourgeois movements and feudal, monarchical and
absolutist forces.

Therefore, says Lenin, “Marx’s method
consists, first of all, in taking due account of the objective content
of a historical process at a given moment, in definite and concrete
conditions; this in order to realise, in the first place, the movement
of which class is the mainspring of the progress possible in those
concrete conditions. In 1859, it was not imperialism that comprised the
objective content of the historical process in continental Europe, but
national-bourgeois movements for liberation. The mainspring was the
movement of the bourgeoisie against the feudal and absolutist forces.”
[...]

“Let us suppose that two countries are at war in
the epoch of bourgeois, national-liberation movements. Which country
should we wish success to from the standpoint of present-day democracy?
Obviously, to that country whose success will give a greater impetus to
the bourgeoisie’s liberation movement, make its development more
speedy, and undermine feudalism the more decisively. Let us further
suppose that the determining feature of the objective historical
situation has changed, and that the place of capital striving for
national liberation has been taken by international, reactionary and
imperialist finance capital. The former country, let us say, possesses
three-fourths of Africa, whereas the latter possesses one-fourth. A
repartition of Africa is the objective content of their war. To which
side should we wish success? It would be absurd to state the problem in
its previous form, since we do not possess the old criteria of
appraisal: there is neither a bourgeois liberation movement running
into decades, nor a long process of the decay of feudalism. It is not
the business of present-day democracy either to help the former country
to assert its ‘right’ to three-fourths of Africa, or to help the latter
country (even if it is developing economically more rapidly than the
former) to take over those three-fourths.

“Present-day
democracy will remain true to itself only if it joins neither one nor
the other imperialist bourgeoisie, only if it says that the two sides
are equally bad, and if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist
bourgeoisie in every country. Any other decision will, in reality, be
national-liberal and have nothing in common with genuine
internationalism.” [...]

“We are undoubtedly living at
the juncture of two epochs, and the historic events that are unfolding
before our eyes can be understood only if we analyse, in the first
place, the objective conditions of the transition from one epoch to the
other. Here we have important historical epochs; in each of them there
are and will always be individual and partial movements, now forward
now backward; there are and will always be various deviations from the
average type and mean tempo of the movement. We cannot know how rapidly
and how successfully the various historical movements in a given epoch
will develop, but we can and do know which class stands at the hub of
one epoch or another, determining its main content, the main direction
of its development, the main characteristics of the historical
situation in that epoch, etc. Only on that basis, i.e., by taking into
account, in the first place, the fundamental distinctive features of
the various ‘epochs’ (and not single episodes in the history of
individual countries), can we correctly evolve our tactics; only a
knowledge of the basic features of a given epoch can serve as the
foundation for an understanding of the specific features of one country
or another. ”

The proponents of today’s theses on
“multipolarity”, namely the progressive role of the monopoly
bourgeoisie that is antagonistic to “strong Western imperialism,”
reiterate the same opportunist theses which Lenin fought against as
they are placed on the positions ”of another class, and moreover of an old and outmoded class [...]”.
Therefore it is not a coincidence that the proponents of this thesis
are those who speak of “intermediate steps” between capitalism and
socialism, who postpone the revolutionary tasks of the working class to
an indefinite future, advocating inter-class alliances with a presumed
(in fact non-existent) “national bourgeoisie”, that they should form an
alliance with one imperialist camp instead of another. A political camp
that hides or tries to insinuate itself into the international workers’
and communist movement, sowing confusion, tailism and demobilization,
including the Party of the European Left (known for its support, for
example, of the European Union and in fact also of NATO) or the
proponents of interstate (bourgeois) alliances of southern Europe to
end up with the open (so-called) red-brown infiltrating groups
[Nazi-Bolsheviks] and a supposed Italic national-bourgeois struggle
linked to the “new Eurasian power.” To always say with Lenin, they ”have
betrayed the standpoint of the class which they are trying hard to
represent, are fo­llowing in the wake of the bourgeoisie.”

At
100 years since the First World War, it is once again the struggle
between revolutionaries and opportunists concerning the international
situation. The recent declaration of the World Federation of Democratic
Youth says:

The First World War ”was
the terrifying revelation of the results of the monopoly stage of
capitalism. The millions of deaths and huge disasters involving
countries from all continents, will forever be a reminder of the
results of the imperialist conflicts and aggression; it will always be
a reminder of the fact that the imperialist alliances serve the
interests of the bourgeoisie of each country, but not the interests of
the people [...]

“Today we can see how history repeats
itself, with new imperialist alliances, regroupments and continuous
increases in military actions. Changes in frontiers and alliances that
take place, usually violently, are creating sparks which may lead to
wider conflicts and international wars [... ]

“As part
of the international anti-imperialist movement, as progressive young
men and women, we honor the victims of the great imperialist war. Our
struggle for peace and friendship among the peoples, our struggle to
overthrow imperialism is what brings the hope of a better future for
humanity, for a necessary progress. As the Great October Revolution was
born from the ruins of the First World War, we are committed to defeat
imperialism to bring peace between the peoples.”14

To really
understand all these events we have no other way than to study
imperialism and Lenin, who often enlightens us wisely. It is precisely
because the world is constantly changing that we need clarity in the
process of internationalization of the productive forces, of the competitive struggle and resulting wars between capitalist countries for the redivision of the world on the basis of the uneven development of the capitalist countries and the relation of interdependence
between them (the world imperialist system). This means to be
politically, ideologically and organizationally consistent in
performing the tasks that history imposes on the communists. And these
tasks cannot be other than those of fighting the “imperialism at home”
(which means, overthrow of the bourgeois power in Italy, withdrawal
from the EU and NATO) by all means (rejecting rancid imperialist
pacifism), the active solidarity of the proletariat and real
international cooperation (for example, with the People’s Republics of
Novorossija), the formation of the international unity of the
communists, the class independence in the struggle against
“any inter-state capitalist alliance” in the realization that the
future of the people will be in their own hands only with the overthrow
of the bourgeois power in each country, the socialization of the means
of production, production and distribution not for profit but for the
satisfaction of the needs of the people. The “communist’” organizations
and their companions who support the Islamic and terrorist rabble in
Syria, the Nazi-fascists in Ukraine in the name of “democracy”, the
liberator “comrade Putin” have only two alternatives. Either use
Marxism-Leninism as a “toolbox” or finally and honestly declare, which
side are you on.

3. Article in Russian by the Russian Communist Workers Party, (a member
of the Initiative of the Communist and Workers Parties of Europe),
which describes the link between bank and industrial capital:
http://rkrp- rpk.ru/content/view/11565/1/.

4. The intervention in Ukraine by the USA, the EU and NATO is part of a
single theatre of war that is being developed from Ukraine to the
south­east of the Mediterranean to the Middle East and Africa,
affecting many countries: Palestine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Mali, Central
African Republic, Sudan, Chad, Ivory Coast, etc. Not to forget the
coups (in Honduras and Paraguay), and attempted coups (in Venezuela,
Bolivia and Ecuador) in the region of South America. The war in Eastern
Europe has the aim of expanding NATO towards the east (as shown by the
recent accords at the summit in Wales) with the establishment of bases
and fixed detachments ready for action, at Russia’s doorstep.

10. The social explosion knocks at the door of the World Cup, by
Edmilson Costa (Brazilian Communist Party). Also note the data on the
monopoly concentration in the Brazilian economy. Available in Italian
at: http:// www.resistenze.org/sito/te/po/br/pobref03-014592.htm

11. An example of this is the recent war of sanctions between the USA,
EU and Russia, for further reading: The War of Sanctions and the
Imperialist Spiral by Alexander Mustillo. Available in Italian at: http://www.senzatregua.it/?p=1322

12. Multipolarity: Two Worlds, or Inter-Imperialist Dispute? By Pavel
Blanco Cabrera, First Secretary of the CC of the Communist Party of
Mexico. Available in Spanish at: http://elcomunista.nuevaradio.org/?p=1331